Reflection Paper

EDUC 765 Trends and Issues in Instructional Design

Rachel King

When I started this course, my previous experience with instructional design centered on creating

lessons for students in a K-12 setting and developing and delivering teacher training sessions. As

I am often the subject matter expert, course designer and instructor all in one, I think that Dick

and Carey’s ID model is most appropriate for my instructional design needs (including this course

project) because it is well suited for purposes such as lesson and unit development within K-12

education (Lee & Lee, n.d.). However, I have also found aspects of Morrison, Ross, Kalman and

Kemp’s ID model (which overlaps at some points with Dick and Carey’s) to be very useful,

especially with regard to their guidelines for identifying the instructional need and carrying out a

task analysis. I will refer to both these models in my future work.

For addressing learner motivation, I relied on Keller’s ARCS model because I found it to

be comprehensive and suitable for the target audience (grade 6 student), whereas theories

related to adult learning would have been inappropriate; for example, I doubt that my student

would benefit from the level of self-direction and autonomy that adult learners would find

motivating. To increase the student’s extrinsic motivation and sense that the learning experience

would be relevant, it was clearly explained that the unit study would be preparing her for success

in a future educational context. Other aspects of the project design intended to foster motivation

were the inclusion of an anticipation guide as a pre-instructional strategy to engage interest,

guidance in the form of objectives, graphic organizers and assignment checklists, and the

provision of support and feedback throughout the unit to build confidence.

Various learning theories were applied to the design of the project. The use of advance

and graphic organizers in the learning unit encourage the connection of known to new information

that is emphasized by both cognitivist and constructivist theories. Graphic organizers also provide
the kind of support that learners need to acquire knowledge and skills that are just beyond their

current level of proficiency. Additionally, learning activities aligned with both lower and higher

order thinking skills on Bloom’s taxonomy help the learner to process information at both surface

and deeper levels, leading to greater understanding and retention. Variability of format in

presentation of information (lectures, videos), and for completion of some assignments, takes into

account the concepts of multiple intelligences and learning styles.

I believe that most learning theories have something to offer the instructional design

process, but my choices for this course reflect the elements of cognitivist and constructivist

theories that I most subscribe to, such as attending to the learner’s schema and providing

appropriate scaffolding for activities. My opinion is that the learner is the most important variable

in the learning equation, so I tend to apply theories that focus on the learner – the learner’s

schema, processing ability and learning preferences. I also accept the idea that learning must be

active, so whilst I believe there is a place for direct instruction, I think the most effective learning

experiences include inquiry-based activities that help learners construct knowledge for

themselves.

The task analysis for this project showed that the learning demands would be mostly in

the cognitive domain, and two salient characteristics of the student are that she has processing

challenges and limited background knowledge of the instructional topic. These factors influenced

the learning theories that were used. In line with cognitive theory, material included in the learning

unit were designed to take into account the student’s prior knowledge, support the student in

processing new information and be matched to the student’s level. As the student requires

considerable support, the instructor will work alongside the student in various ways, for example,

in discussions of reading material. This aligns with the social constructivist idea that one way in

which young learners construct knowledge is in collaboration with adults.

I found applying instructional design principles to this project very enlightening and useful.

Previously, I hadn’t really thought of instructional design as a process beyond the steps involved
in writing a lesson plan, so it was very helpful for me to learn about essential stages such as

carrying out a goal analysis. Understanding that instructional design is systematic gives me

confidence that I can approach ID projects in a logical and efficient way. Instruction that I delivered

in the past, particularly for teacher training, would have been enhanced if I had been more

systematic in my approach.

In my current position I plan to continue applying the instructional design process to

developing learning units. When I compare the unit that I began designing for this course with

others that I have worked on, this one is significantly better in terms of clarity of goals,

organization, content and support for the learner. Whereas previously I felt very dependent on

existing instructional material, which sometimes meant using resources that weren’t the most

suitable for my student, I now feel more equipped to independently design and develop an

effective learning experience. I am also more aware of ID as a field and of the tools and resources

that are available.

This course had yielded valuable takeaways for me. One is that ID leads to greater

efficiency and effectiveness by focusing on what learners need to know, instead of on what they

already know or don’t need to learn. In addition, I learned the importance of the steps that need

to be taken, such as carrying out a front-end analysis, before I arrive at designing the actual

instruction. The most valuable activity for me was working on the goal and task analyses and

writing the objectives. One of the reasons I chose to do this course was so that I could get a better

grasp of applying theories like Bloom’s taxonomy to developing learning objectives. I had the most

fun working on the supporting content and applying the graphic design principles that I learned.

As this is the first course in a certificate program, I still have questions about later steps in

the instructional design process such as how to evaluate program efficiency and project

management aspects. I am interested in learning more about using technology tools such as e-

learning software to design and deliver instruction. I intend to revisit the information in the

textbooks used for this course to address some of the questions that I still have. I have also
identified websites dedicated to instructional design and e-learning that have lots of useful

resources. This course sparked an interest in instructional design and introduced me to a field

that I hadn’t really been aware of before. I don’t know if I will ever pursue a career as a full-time

instructional designer, but I am certain that the knowledge and skills I gained from this course will

go a long way towards improving my current projects that require instructional design.
 References

Clark, D. (n.d.). Bloom’s taxonomy of learning domains. Retrieved from

http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html

Clark, D. (n.d.). John Keller’s ARCS model of motivational design. Retrieved from

http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/learning/id/arcs_model.html

Lee, H. & Lee, S. (n.d.). Dick and Carey model. Retrieved from

http://www.umich.edu/~ed626/Dick_Carey/dc.html

Morrison, R. G., Ross, M. S., Kalman, H. K., & Kemp, E. J. (2013). Designing effective

instruction (7th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.